Making everyone happy is impossible. Pissing them off is a piece of cake. I like cake.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Buying alcohol at 21

We have all seen those signs in supermarkets that sanctimoniously inform us that, if we are purchasing alcohol, the cashier may ask us to produce ID if we look "under 21".

These signs have consistently pissed me off: the legal age for the purchase of alcohol in thos country is 18, not 21. If I look under 18, then I fully expect to be asked to prove my age; but I should not have to prove that I am 21, only 18. Now, there may be utterly reasonable reasons for IDing people who look under 21—it might be easier to tell those who are 21 than 18, for instance (although not in my case)—but it is still pretty fucking insulting.

This "under 21" scheme is not a retailer-organised scheme as far as I can tell; the labels and signage are all the same, so I assume that it is a government initiative imposed "voluntarily" on retailers. These signs have been gently conditioning the population to believe that they need to be 21 in order to buy alcohol.

So, you can imagine the total lack of surprise with which I greeted this story.

The age for buying alcohol from supermarkets and off-licences in Scotland could rise from 18 to 21.

Scottish ministers said it was time for radical action in the fight against Scotland's binge drinking culture.

But retailers and student leaders said the plan, which would see 18-year-olds still being served in pubs, was "confusing" and a "blunt instrument".

And so the infantilisation of the population continues.

Look, you Jock fuckwits, listen to what you are saying: you maintain that Scotland has a "binge-drinking culture". It's a cultural thing, you fucking numb-nuts; making alcohol harder to purchase has not actually stopped the number of kids getting pissed—in fact, the numbers have risen consistently. Telling people that it is illegal to do this or that does not make it any less desirable.

Parliament minister Bruce Crawford said yesterday: "It is the responsibility of us all to get young people interested in the democratic process.

"We cannot on the one hand say we are interested in the views of young people while on the other refusing them access to the ballot box until they are 18.

"While 16-year-olds can pay taxes, get married or serve in the armed forces, they effectively have to bite their lip when it comes to decisions that will affect them.

"At the very point that society expects young people to assume many of the responsibilities that come with adulthood, it is only right they also get the right to vote.

"That is why I am happy to announce the Scottish government's support for reducing the voting age to 16."

So, 16 year olds are old enough to "pay taxes, get married or serve in the armed forces" and, apparently, decide for whom to vote, but they are not old enough to make a mature decision about cigarettes and alcohol.

In this, we see four aspects of the modern managerialist ideology of the law:

Paternalism. The function of the state is no longer to protect people from each other, but rather to protect people from themselves. Indeed, it’s to enforce an “ideal” of what people should be - self-controlled, upright prigs. This represents a flat contradiction - which, ideologically, is rarely made explicit - of centuries of political theory. Needless to say, the Tories share this ideology.

“Tough on the causes of crime.” Binge drinking, say defenders of this move, causes crime - and the causes of crime should themselves be crimes.

This is an ideological claim in two senses. First, because it presumes that disorderly behaviour can be eliminated at source by straightening the crooked timber of humanity. It does not recognize that we’ll always misbehave, and that the response to this should be to uphold ancient laws against being drunk and disorderly; the idea that the police should do their job has long been abandoned.

Second, it takes a selective view of the causes of crime. One big cause is poverty; only economic illiterates deny this. And yet the soft-headed left is notably lax about eliminating poverty.

It delegates fighting crime to business. It’s retailers who will have to police this law, just as businesses are expected to police anti-immigration laws. The distinction between private and public sector functions is thus blurred.

Selective enforcement. Picture the scene. A lairy gang wanting to get even more tanked up go into a shop to buy a few cases of Stella. Does the store manager really risk a fight and a big loss of sales by stopping them?

No. He‘s far more likely to pick on the solitary 20-year old wanting to buy a bottle of wine for his mum.

Decent people are thus victimized by a collaboration between two cowardly bullies—the state and business—whilst potential criminals go free.

Do go and read the whole thing. In his measured way, Chris bitch-slaps this proposal quite comprehensively but then comes to an odd conclusion.

Personally, I'd just like to add the following: "fuck off, you illiberal, paternalist wankers."

This is the equivilent of holding car dealers responsible for the antics of 18 year olds in Saxos.

The Scots have ALWAYS had a drinking problem. And a violence problem. And a chip on their shoulders the size of Greenland. Telling Abdul in the corner shop to stop selling Buckfast to 18 year olds is not going to make that culture go away. Getting rid of the "hard man" image, the sectarianism and the heroin might.

We already have laws to deal with underage drinking. We already have laws to deal with drunks in public. What we don't have is anything more than blurry CCTV cameras on every street corner to facilitate the doughnut eating "Police" in issueing crime numbers.

Again, they cannot understand that to stop a small minority doing what they do, they do not need to stop everyone doing it.

when some idiot leaves uni with a degree and an overinflated sense of their own importance, they're ready to set the world aright. us proles suffer the consequences of their never ending attempts to regulate our lives.

yet these same idiots are barely out of uni and into to some cushy job in the media, politics or 'consulting' when they come across a problem they don't understand.

their answer - ban it, regulate it, demonise it. the road to serfdom is upon us and the enemies of the open society now rule the asylum.

An expat working in Saudi once told me that a fellow expat had been charged with causing a traffic accident whilst riding as a passenger in a taxi. The theory was that he had 'caused' the accident by hiring the cab in the first place. As he was an infidel it was obvious that Allah was after him. Same sort of logic as the Jocks' 'because you're a wicked capitalist/retailer you're the cause of the behaviour of your feral customers'.

And then I wonder who is responsible for the stupidity and veniality of our politicians. Is it the politicians or is it a lazy dumbed down electorate. And who dumbed my fellow citizens down?

Teenagers have been drinking alcohol for centuries and learning about it and it's use is part of growing up.

So binge drinking is not a new phenomenon-the only thing that is new is that we have are now governed by a bunch of smug wankers who get their kicks by trying to interfere in our lives. And they use the media to generate fear in order to justify their actions.

But it would be so much better if they came clean and did it all in one go instead of the continual drip drip.

Tobacco, alcopops, rock climbing, racism, prostitution, coal, sunshine, anal sex, boxing, homophobia, pornography, aerosols and driving a 4x4 faster than someone can walk in front of it with a red flag could all be potentially harmful.

We are all stupid morons who can't work these things out for ourselves and need to be protected by the legislators who know what is good for us.

As CS Lewis put it, "of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

I wonder why a shopkeeper might not be at 'liberty' to cover his own arse ?If I were likely to lose my licence to trade because I'd sold to someone under 18, I would ask to see an ID if I wanted to. And if the potential purchaser thought it was "pretty fucking insulting", he would be told he had the "liberty" fuck off somewhere else to buy it.Just what is it with libertarians and the fixation with booze and drugs....Do we expect to see at any point soon a post saying why is the poor downtrodden population prevented from hoofing or slapping the selfish cunts who spoil others lives by their boozing, drugtaking or fucking sanctimonious smug pontificating about perceived denials of liberty?

Will you please attempt to think rather than trotting out your prejudices.

"I wonder why a shopkeeper might not be at 'liberty' to cover his own arse ?If I were likely to lose my licence to trade because I'd sold to someone under 18, I would ask to see an ID if I wanted to. And if the potential purchaser thought it was "pretty fucking insulting", he would be told he had the "liberty" fuck off somewhere else to buy it."

Yes, he does. Morrison's now ID everyone no matter how old. This is fucking stupid and I will therefore not shop at Morrison's.

But the current crackdown is little to do with retailers' wishes and more to do with those of the state.

"Just what is it with libertarians and the fixation with booze and drugs...."

Because we get morons like you saying things like "if we legalise drugs, they'll be lots of stoned people driving cars and crashing into shit." Thus it becomes the ultimate flag of freedom: being able to fuck myself up if I like as long as I don't fuck anyone else up.

Fucking hell, it's not exactly complicated.

"Do we expect to see at any point soon a post saying why is the poor downtrodden population prevented from hoofing or slapping the selfish cunts who spoil others lives by their boozing, drugtaking or fucking sanctimonious smug pontificating about perceived denials of liberty?"

If someone initiates violence against you, you are entirely entitled to defend your life, liberty and porperty, and you are entitled to ask others to help you defend your life, liberty and property.

How any people were shot per week in the street before guns were banned? How many after?

How many stabbings per week before knives were banned? How many after?

Banning something makes it more attractive to a rebellious youth. In the case of weapons, it also means they can brandish them with confidence, knowing the law-abiding won't have any.

Did raising the smoking age from 16 to 18 prevent 10-year-olds from taking it up? How could it? They were obtaining their fags illegally anyway, so what changed for them? It changed things for the legally-smoking 17-year-old, that's for sure. What did it change for the already-illegally-smoking 10-year-old?

All it will do is stop the 20-year old buying a few cans to take home and watch the match, where he can get dribbling drunk in his own home without bothering anyone else. Now he'll have to go to the pub and stagger home afterwards.

The kids who get pissed on street corners will not be affected in the slightest. They were already getting the stuff illegally. They already know how to get around the law.

Those who break existing laws will have no qualms about breaking new ones.

The only ones these laws affect are those who were law-abiding anyway. They add more control to those who don't need to be controlled.

They will not be enforced against the wild yob, only against the law-abiding. The easy target.

Clearly drinking is a problem for all age groups these days. However the youth are the easiest to target, as they are the less interested in politics. On the other hand, the prolific age group that do vote are 60+, for whom a large majority are petrified of the youth. This maybe for as many good reasons as well as bad.

The youth have become understandably nihilistic about politics. They see no point in it whatsoever, as they see themselves with virtually no power to make changes in their life. They grow up in crappy estates, with broken and abusive families. They are constantly reminded through crap state education that they are worthless and ineffectual for which a life on the dole is their only value.

The pomposity of our politicians for whom stomp around accusing teenagers to have lost all morals, are possessed by their own personal gain. Is it any wonder when we see this FILTH robbing the public purse to enrich their own family? The youth justifiably hold this SCUM in contempt and therefore never involve themselves in politics. It is only once they grow up having been battered by a merciless state into contrition that they then come begging for a few crumbs of compassion from these murderous pricks. And what do they get?… Sod all….

Remove the state and allow the free market to flourish and we will at last give our youth something to strive for, without the need for drug & alcohol dependency. We all struggle under the tyranny of govt, but the underclass and disenfranchised suffer far worse, many of whom will never free themselves from the misery of their lives.

No, I understand his point, as must most people. If you get your enemies trying to ban the Scots from drinking they will:

a) Failb) Become universally hated in the process.

I have some form here, having been a Whitehall civil servant for some 20 years. It is interesting to compare the position of, say, France with the Lisbon Treaty. France is well served by the Nice treaty, having voting parity with Germany in spite of having a far smaller population. Lisbon would be a step back for them. So it is in France's interest to 'insist' on pushing Lisbon through in so undemocratic a way that it is resisted by everyone. They can then go to Germany and say 'We tried, but...'.

Sir Humphrey is, as usual, two steps ahead of the game and holding a pocket full of aces from a different pack, just in case...

...."Because we get morons like you" ....fucking hell DK, we used to be able to get reasoned argument here.

"Trotting out prejudices", fucking hell I've got another old etonian telling that what to think.Morrisons is not staffed by people who are paid to make decisions, just scan the fucking goods and ask for the money. If they get it wrong they get sacked..... I suppose the could console themselves when out of a job, that they did not tread on your libertarian sensitivities.

Is there fuck all of importance for you to get into a tizz about ?

Another father killed himself on Father's day because of the legal system, the EU is taking over our country and you all get excited about whether you can get stoned or pissed in a libertarian or non-libertarian fashion for fuck's sake.

Did you answer whether it is OK to drink and drive if you don't hurt anyone ?

Oh dear, another "we wanna get drunk 'cos we're free thinkers" rant, and DK having a go at Haddock because he or she has a point of view that differs does not help at all.

Listen, boozers, let's clear this up once and for all. People getting drunk on tube trains to piss on the seats isn't "freedom" and neither are gangs of inebriated 15 year olds throwing up beween making a lot of noise and along the way creating fear for other people.

Libertarians appear to want to have the "liberty" not to be told what to do with their own bodies. Fair enough, but every time a "Libertarian" exercises his or her right to do a supposedly intelligent thing, there are thousands who have no ability to discern what is intelligent or not.

Getting drunk or drugged up for most of these people is what they do because they can afford it and it accessible. Emotionally they can't afford it and usually they have trouble later facing the consequences. But they aren't being "Libertarian" and making a considered choice when they pour more fizzy piss-maker down their throats.

Should we ask people to think before drink? Well, we can ask and when they don't we can send people round later to clear up. But don't pretend this is an example of free-thinking. It isn't.

As it happens I don't drink and can't say I want to join in, having seen some of the blubbering, slobbering, pant-soiling excesses drinkers get up to after their "pint or two" night out. It could be argued that it is the one thing in any culture that basically does more harm than good. Countless millions of pounds every year ends up being pissed up against someone's house wall (or through their letterbox, my how we laughed at that one), people get so pissed they can't think straight and commit violence, crimes, have unprotected sex and tell their hairy, macho best mate they have always loved them.

Thank goodness none of this is remembered in the morning. Yep, even the girl with the unwanted child might not remember too. And to all those people who drink to forget, guess what... when you get over your hangover the next day, oh shit, the problems are still there.

Devil's Kitchen is a bunch of fun when it attacks the venal and corrupt, the self-serving and the wankers who try to control society for their own benefit. But where DK falls down in a drunken stupor is the thought of alcohol being restricted.

I do not live in Scotland, and do not understand what their problems are. I do live in a small town in England and not only is the town centre out-of-bounds to all but the most determined piss-heads on a Friday and Saturday night but things like corner shops and parks become risky trips.

I also admit I do not have a single idea about what age people should be allowed to buy booze and nor do I have any clever "solutions." Not being a drinker I have no idea how many units of alcohol are supposedly good for people. From what I've seen, zero alcohol units usually seems about best.

Oh I know, booze loosens the tongue and breaks the ice at parties and anyway everyone knows where to get it illegally anyway so what's the point of making an effort to curtail sales? I haven't any idea where to buy illegal booze, but then maybe I'm a bit worried about going out at night to find out.

But hey, don't worry guys; I'm not "libertarian" at all so what the fuck would I know?

I dont think the new retail guidelines have anything to do with paternalistic thoughts; they are more likely a result of government pressure to curb binge drinking and are so designed to limit the chances of selling to underage drinkers; remember that the loss of a license for a big retailer like this would be catastrophic for business.

I agree with you on nigh on everything else DK, but a retailer protecting its license by imposing stricter controls on how they sell alcohol is not an unfair practice; proselytising to its customer is its own decision and its customers will happily walk if they dislike it (unlike what we can do with the SOBs in power)

As for your comment on Morrison's checkouts having mandatory ID requests I live near to 3 stores and have not once been asked for ID, nor has my wife, brother (who is definately closer than I to the individual 20 year old described by Dillow), sister or any friend, meaning you must be shopping at some pretty anally-retentive stores. Besides, Haddock is right in that they are paid to scan, not to think, and so when uncertainty abounds they are instructed to air on the side of caution.

A further point about checkout IDing would be that it is illegal to SELL alcohol if you are under 18, as a fair amount of A-level and under-18s work for their pocket money on nights and weekends they are obliged to request a supervisor when someone purchases booze and request ID; this has been on the statute books since I worked for M&S as a 17 year old doing his A-levels. This all adds to the pot and just makes it easier to request ID than not.

"Drink as much as you want but don't drive a car when I am on the road. Becuase then you infringing my liberty to drive about without being killed by a drunk."

Ah, the precautionary principle. So, given that the vast majority of road collisions are caused by sober people, they should also not be on the road? After all, they are infringing your liberty to drive about without being killed by someone sober...

(I'm not necessarily saying that I support drink-driving, I'm just pointing out that using the precautionary principle to make law is a) stupid, and b) always leads to diminished freedom.

Mine a pint...

"Listen, boozers, let's clear this up once and for all. People getting drunk on tube trains to piss on the seats isn't "freedom" and neither are gangs of inebriated 15 year olds throwing up beween making a lot of noise and along the way creating fear for other people."

I'm so sick of explaining this, but I shall try again.

These people are a minority. The majority of drinkers do not behave like this.

Even were such people in the majority, the fact that not everyone behaves like this means is that alcohol does not cause such behaviour. OK? Can you accept that logic? Good, let's move onto the next stage.

The people that you cite are cunts: they are cunts whilst they are sober and the alcohol simply makes them a bit more of a cunt.

The problem is not the alcohol, but the population of the country who are cunts.

Therefore, the correct response is to punish the cunts when they are being cunty, not to punish everyone who wishes to have a drink.

Can I make that any clearer?

"Fair enough, but every time a "Libertarian" exercises his or her right to do a supposedly intelligent thing, there are thousands who have no ability to discern what is intelligent or not."

Ah, the patrician outlook: "I know what I am doing, but these thickies cannot possibly understand. Therefore, I and my clever mates should curtail the freedoms of the thickies and the commoners. One law for us and another for them." A lovely attitude and one that has worked so very, very well...

"Countless millions of pounds every year ends up being pissed up against someone's house wall (or through their letterbox, my how we laughed at that one), people get so pissed they can't think straight and commit violence, crimes, have unprotected sex and tell their hairy, macho best mate they have always loved them.

Thank goodness none of this is remembered in the morning. Yep, even the girl with the unwanted child might not remember too. And to all those people who drink to forget, guess what... when you get over your hangover the next day, oh shit, the problems are still there."

That is because the rest of us are compelled to give the state a quarter of our earnings (at the very least) so that the state can insulate these people from the consequences of their actions.

I prefer the "pay for your lifestyle" approach (just one of the reasons that I favour private medical insurance).

You get so pissed that you need your stomach pumped? That'll be £150.

Deck someone when you're pissed? Good, you go to court and the victim's compensation (which right now is paid by the rest of us) comes out of your pay packet -- and, yes, for the next twenty years if necessary.

Damage property whilst you are pissed? Again, you are forced to pay for it.

Get someone up the duff/get up the duff whilst pissed? You pay for the morning after pill (which is already the case: £25) or you pay £300 for the abortion or you pay for the child.

Being drunk whilst doing any of these things is not an excuse. It's not an excuse at the time, it's not an excuse in court; you cannot plead temporary insanity even if you cannot remember doing any of this shit.

It tough tits: you chose to get drunk, you chose to be a cunt, you can pay for it. If you don't like having your salary docked every month, then don't. Fucking. Do. It.

If you are on benefits -- well, you should not be able to buy alcohol anyway. And if you can afford to buy alcohol, then you can fucking well afford to pay for the damage that you have caused when on it.

That is the libertarian view: personal freedom comes hand-in-hand with personal responsibility. And that means paying when you infringe on someone's life, liberty or property.

Now, you can happily have a go at me for not advocating the restriction of alcohol in the current state in which we live, but don't conflate libertarianism with your idea of some kind of devil-may-care libertine lifestyle because that is to utterly misrepresent it.

"How come arguments against libertarianism so often seem to come down to 'people are stupid and need to be told what to do'?"

Because a) that is the only reasonable argument against libertarianism, and b) we live, as I have opined before, in a country populated by selfish, pusillanimous, little fascists, twitching their net curtains and opening their big, fucking mouths without engaging their brains first.

"Not being a drinker I have no idea how many units of alcohol are supposedly good for people. From what I've seen, zero alcohol units usually seems about best."

Well just you run along and drink zero then.

I've never drunk alcohol then driven a car. I've never puked on anyone. I've never pissed on a tube seat. I've never been in a drunken brawl, never got pregnant after drink. So why don't you just FUCK OFF AND LEAVE ME IN PEACE.

Being a teetotaler is not incompatible with being a libertarian. You may believe that alcohol consumption is a vice, but that doesn't necessitate that its the government's job to try and solve the problem.

"This is the equivilent of holding car dealers responsible for the antics of 18 year olds in Saxos."

Oh, Christ, don't give them any more stupid ideas..!!

"I've never drunk alcohol then driven a car. I've never puked on anyone. I've never pissed on a tube seat. I've never been in a drunken brawl, never got pregnant after drink. So why don't you just FUCK OFF AND LEAVE ME IN PEACE."

1. Everyone who drinks alcohol is a binge drinker, and every one of them rampages through the city centre smashing things.

2. Everyone who drinks alcohol will then get in their car and look for sober people to crash into.

Well, you're entitled to your insane opinions, just as you were entitled to believe that every smoker in the land was an evil bastard who felt compelled to seek out non-smokers and breathe on them. This is the same thing again.

However, I would like to know how raising the off-sales age limit to 21 makes either of those problems go away.

In fact, if the 18-21 year olds can no longer buy beer to drink at home, the only place they can now get a drink is the pub.

Thus there will be a higher incidence of drunk driving and an increased rowdiness in the city centre, as all those who would normally have sat at home and wasted themselves will now be joining all those who prefer to do it outside.

Then, pub drinking age will rise to 21 and off-sales to 25. The Righteous will tut-tut and say how terrible all drinkers are, just as they still do to smokers even though they've now been banished from anywhere with a roof.

There are so many people now who seem to spend their lives looking for something to be offended about. Who are so filled with hate that they just need the hint of a target and they're in there, slashing away. Anything and everything except one thing. The one thing they know, but will never admit, is the root of their problem. Their own cowardice.

First they came for the smokers.Now they've come for the drinkers.Whos next?What's your pleasure, sir?

DK, you truly have turned into a politician. for the THIRD time of asking........."Once they harm others -- whether on drugs or not (and let me remind you that the vast majority of road crashes are caused by those who are entirely sober) -- then that is a different matter."

So by that logic driving when drunk is perfectly OK as long as no one is actually hurt..... will we see this in your manifesto ?

.....and no fucking libertarian equivalent of tractor production figures ta very much, a yes or no will do just fine.

Why have an age restriction at all ? I used to go to the village shop and buy beer and cigs for my father in the early 50s ( Senior Service or Capstan Full Strength 1/5d for 20 .... 7p ) and I was only 6 or 7.The difference is of course that children did not have any money then, in fact neither did a lot of parents.... if you had stolen money to buy beer or cigs then you WOULD have been taken to court and your name WOULD have been in the local newspaper, no fucking about and there WOULD have been shame and stigma ( one of my brothers nicked some cigs, 1st offence, age 11 or 12 I think, he went to court and was fined 5/-, and it was published in the local paper..no cautions in the sixties.How times and attitudes have changed.

"DK, you truly have turned into a politician. for the THIRD time of asking........."

Apologies, I was just ignoring you.

""Once they harm others -- whether on drugs or not (and let me remind you that the vast majority of road crashes are caused by those who are entirely sober) -- then that is a different matter."

So by that logic driving when drunk is perfectly OK as long as no one is actually hurt..... will we see this in your manifesto ?"

*sigh*

First off, it is not my manifesto: it is the Libertarian Party manifesto and there are another 200 or so people to consult.

If you are asking, would I like to see it in the manifesto, I would have to answer truthfully that I just don't know.

As I keep on saying, I am a Consequentialist Libertarian -- i.e. I look for the best outcome -- and so I would venture that the potential damage from a car crash probably outweighs the right to drive drunk; although the perpetrator might well be punished (and severely) people might well still be dead.

So "probably not" is the answer. On the other hand, I would almost certainly raise the limit.

"So by that logic driving when drunk is perfectly OK as long as no one is actually hurt"

Sounds disturbingly like Catholic dogma does that. You *intended* to steal a gold ring, but it was only a brass one in the end, so it's a lesser sin. Or not. Whatever.

Driving when drunk maybe kills someone, or maybe not. Pure chance. A perfectly libertarian answer is that the driver is taking risks with someone else's life, and that a large hazard (hazard = probability x magnitude of outcome) imposed on someone is itself harm, even if no injury resulted in any particular instance.

Thus drink driving is a clash of freedoms: the driver's freedom to get pissed and the pedestrian's freedom to walk on the pavement with low risk. I think that in arbitrating these freedoms it's pretty easy to see it comes down in the pedestrian's favour.

But I have to ask: what the fuck has this to do with stopping people who don't drink and drive but who are chronologically 20 years old from buying a bottle of wine in Tesco's?

Drink driving poses a tasty question for libertarians because it pushes the JS Mill principle to the point where common sense really does threaten to get in the way. As someone who considers myself to be a libertarian, I've pondered it a few times. Wrestled with it, even. I know that the none-more-libertarian Sean Gabb (of the Libertarian Alliance) often appears on the radio saying that the drink driving laws should be scrapped. I would beg to differ, purely on the basis that you have to pass a driving test to be able to drive a car which shows that we expect a level of capability before we allow someone to get behind the wheel. That level would not be reached by someone who was pissed and therefore you can't drive pissed. I don't see that as conflicting with libertarian principles, unless libertarian principles insist on the scrapping of the driving test as well.

I don't agree with scrapping drink-driving laws - although the argument on drink-driving has nothing to do with the proposals that started this discussion. Those proposals concern buying booze in a supermarket, not drinking it on the way home. I still think forcing the 18-21's into the pub instead of allowing them to drink at home will make things worse, not better.

The way I see it is this - yes, everyone should be free to do what they like as long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else (by that I mean cause actual harm, not a little bit of hurt feelings. I'm sick of hearing about people being arrested for 'insulting' someone).

Drinking, as Chris Snowdon said, affects the ability to drive. To what limit? Well, that depends on the individual. I know drinkers, larger and more experienced at drinking than me, who could drive safely after drinking far more than me. I'd be unsafe after a couple of pints. So you need either a low limit to be on the safe side, or individual limits (perhaps in the form of a test?) which would be a lot of fuss.

So driving while impaired seems to me to be a little like walking along the High Street blindfolded while throwing knives. You might kill someone, you might not hit anyone, but is it worth the risk to allow people freedom to do that?

Balancing freedoms, I'd say it's more important to be free to walk the streets without being mown down by a pie-eyed driver who sees two of you and misses the wrong one, than to be free to drive home after hitting the booze hard. We have taxis for that sort of thing.

So I'd vote for keeping the drink-driving laws. The limits? I don't know, someone who knows about such things might. I certainly wouldn't go for a zero-limit because that will hit someone who's only had a shandy with his lunch, and is perfectly safe to drive.

Really the whole Libertarian Party thing reminds me of an episode from Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy where the hairstylists, PR types and probably graphic designers had been 'sent on ahead' and other sundry non-productive types to another planet.I seem to remember that they were most diligent in their discussions on the wheel they were inventing.... they had the colour fixed... and the texture.... the only thing they hadn't sorted was the shape.

200 ehhh! fuck me. I imagine David Davis must have experienced such a wave of relief as he mopped the cold sweat of fear from his brow when he heard you were not standing ! Rather like Putin would have felt if Stoke Poges had decided to invade and then backed off.

Your whole argument on drink and drugs come across as a Libertine argument not Libertarian.Not that I give a toss, it is probably a good job you fucked off out of UKIP before you could do any harm with your airy-fairy nonsense.

Patrick, I know that, I do what I can locally to help UKIP try to get fewer fuckers taking my money and telling me what to do.Go on tell us what you are doing, sitting around with DK discussing wheel shape and good intentions ?

No disrespect here, but how on earth do you think one mafia gang will be nicer than another?.. It's much like a wife that is lucky enough to only getting beaten up by her husband once a year as opposed to the full daily pounding of current govt...

Real freedom from these thugs comes at a high price... Way beyond the price and machinations of govt and state...

On a philosophical level the non-agression principle is clear that neither you nor me have the right to control each other... And my gut tells me that Ukip values nationhood way beyond freedom...

Patrick, DK is giving a fine display in this thread of why the Libertarian/libertine party will be no different to any other party. We have here a founding father of a party who, when challenged on any point, falls back to the moron, stupid prick argument..... I am obviously stupid as I don't agree with him.(If you are going to argue DK, don't do my arguing for me as well as your own..... unlike you I don't want to run the country or impose my views on others. I don't think I've ever claimed to be sensible either.... but I have a point of view and will express it up to the point where you make it illegal for me to do so, and beyond.)I suppose though if I ever wanted to be a big-shot I would join a party that was the best chance of reducing the burden on us (late in the day, long after other freedom seekers); then I would make a big to-do, run for office ( whether for fame, influence, money or a leg-over I don't know); I would then get ignored, loose interest and worst of all, not be in the limelight .... I would then sulk and stomp off to start my own pretendy party as the only way to get to the top of a tree..... to plant a fucking acorn and sit on it.

I agree that all political parties, will be corrupted by state power... Agreed some more than others... And although I tend to fall closest to the libertarian point of view I don’t think we shall see them with any influence in govt in the near future... And I tend to agree with DK’s point regarding Ukip’s image. There maybe some well meaning people within that party, but there is an overwhelming sense of pomposity about them….

People on the whole love govt; they are slaves to it... Tony (arsewipe) Blair gave us a very good example of how the general electorate views these things... They are thoroughly convinced that nothing can be done without govt intervention in everything.…

We are a long way off from REAL Freedom... and mores the pity... But I can absolutely guarantee you that that Freedom WILL NOT come from the UKIP or Libertarian party and most certainly ALL FORMS of govt will be nowhere in sight when it does…

Of course this will never happen in our lifetime, but its good to dream and one I would at least like to pass on to the next generation… Yours with kindest regards…

"Patrick, DK is giving a fine display in this thread of why the Libertarian/libertine party will be no different to any other party."

Libertarian and libertine are not the same. Will you stop conflating them.

"We have here a founding father of a party who, when challenged on any point, falls back to the moron, stupid prick argument....."

DK is not me. DK is not the Libertarian Party.

"I am obviously stupid as I don't agree with him."

No. I have asked you to think about certain concepts. Now, maybe you haven't thought about them, in which case you should simply get out of this debate. If you have thought about them and you still don't get it, you are obviously stupid.

"(If you are going to argue DK, don't do my arguing for me as well as your own..... unlike you I don't want to run the country or impose my views on others."

Really? So you support drink-driving then? Yes or no?

"I don't think I've ever claimed to be sensible either.... but I have a point of view and will express it up to the point where you make it illegal for me to do so, and beyond.)"

I would not make it illegal for you to express any opinion: that is rather the point of libertarianism. We libertarians are quite keen on free speech.

"I suppose though if I ever wanted to be a big-shot I would join a party that was the best chance of reducing the burden on us (late in the day, long after other freedom seekers); then I would make a big to-do, run for office ( whether for fame, influence, money or a leg-over I don't know); I would then get ignored, loose interest and worst of all, not be in the limelight .... I would then sulk and stomp off to start my own pretendy party as the only way to get to the top of a tree..... to plant a fucking acorn and sit on it."

*pats haddock on head*

Yes, you carry on believing that, old boy. It might have some truth to it were it not for the inconvenient fact that starting the Libertarian Party was not my idea.

The fact is, haddock, whilst I like the UKIP leadership (in general) I found many of the members to be... well... attempting to achieve something that I was not keen on.

Now, if I am going to be in an obscure party that is never going to get into power, then I'll go for the one that best suits my beliefs, i.e. the Libertarian Party. Otherwise, I might as well fuck off and join the Tories, eh?

Still, I am glad to have left UKIP simply because it is populated by authoritarian scum like you, and you are happy that I left before I infected UKIP with my "airy-fairy nonsense" about liberty, so we're both happy, right?

P.S. For anyone still interested, Haddock seems to have hidden his profile. However, should anyone wish to get a flavour of this noble freedom fighter, his blog is here; in just the top few posts, you can read about how"to knobjockey for position", find out who is a "Foppish gayer", "a pathetic pretend 'man'", "disgusting shirtlifter", "a mincing simpering cunt" and a "girly fucking poof" who doesn't "know what [his] arse is for."

Or maybe you'd like to read about haddock's recommended treatment for some brown people -- "fuck 'em, keep the little girls and kick the selfish backward cunts out of our country back to their shithole of a country"?

Oh, and then he's back on the gays: "What is going on over at Mrs* Dales Diary ?

What used to be a political blog has turned into a bloody fairy icon site..... going to see fucking musicals, watching the Eurovision song Contest.... AND ADMITTING IT !" Shocking: never mind, you can go and listen to some soothing music by "that pansy cunt Elton John". Or not. For, as haddock says, "Fucking hell, If I want poof propaganda I can watch BBC."

And you just can't escape the "PC shirt-lifters" these days, eh? "Same sex marriages for fuck's sake, what a perversion."

to be correct DK you should have said Haddock's profile is hidden, the way you stated it is to give the impression that I hid it rather than blogspot fucking up and mangling settings. It is not hidden now.

The link to this comment "fuck 'em, keep the little girls and kick the selfish backward cunts out of our country back to their shithole of a country"? is broken so the comment cannot be seen in context.... but then you knew that didn't you.As for the comment that I'm "not unusual", no not unusual at all Millions and millions of us, the proles, dislike the whole idea of homosexuality; we were never asked if it was OK with us to change our laws and culture. No doubt you will initiate a further progrom to 'change our perceptions' or to 'address our issues'

This thread has told your readers a little bit about me.... and a lot about you. I'm just a hobby blogger with no influence, you are the hotshot uberblogger, fisking and swearing his way against all evil with stats to die for........ and now you have shown yourself to be no better than those you fisk, a fucking biggotted 'I know best' hypocrite.

pagar, why on earth would a poof not get rolled because I blogged about them. I don't like onions or celery... I don't go around crushing or smashing it for fuck's sake...... as for suggesting I'm a child molester that is just beyond the pale... what a bunch of cunts you freedom lovers are. If you want to debate further come over to my place, bring some data to support your fucking nonsense and some sensible arguments.And just who Kay tie have I hurt ? Are you another of these libertarians that will tell me what to think say and do.... what a bunch of fucking handwringing do-gooders. I happen to think that to change laws or to make new ones there should be a democratic process, obviously you don't. Don't you find it odd that you can call me a worthless human being for thinking and saying things but that sex between man and man is just fine and dandy and worth parades in its honour... you are truly weird. Other people burnt people and rendered them down to fats, they believed that they had the right to do that to people who they didn't like.... Libertarian or fucking Nazi ? I don't suppose you know enough history or have the intelligence to make the connection in what you said.... are you a 14 year old girl, I used to teach that age group and you argue like one.

"Don't you find it odd that you can call me a worthless human being for thinking and saying things but that sex between man and man is just fine and dandy and worth parades in its honour"

Nope, not odd in the slightest.

"Libertarian or fucking Nazi ? I don't suppose you know enough history or have the intelligence to make the connection in what you said"

I know a lot more history than you do, Haddy. For a start, I know that you and the Nazis were peas in a pod, except that they actually got to make the gays sew pink triangles, whereas that you just masturbate to the idea.

where do you get your strange fantasies ? you are all for rendering people down to fat because they don't think exactly as you? fucking hell that's a bit of a bugger when it comes to free speech.Now be a good girl and get off to bed, it's late and the grown ups would like some time now.

"Really the whole Libertarian Party thing reminds me of an episode from Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy where the hairstylists, PR types and probably graphic designers had been 'sent on ahead' and other sundry non-productive types to another planet.I seem to remember that they were most diligent in their discussions on the wheel they were inventing.... they had the colour fixed... and the texture.... the only thing they hadn't sorted was the shape."

I distinctly remember that the "productive" types in The Hitchhikers Guide all died from an infection spread from a dirty phone receiver, previously cleaned by one of the "unproductives".

pagar, you have had an invite to come and debate the matter, I'd like to see some argument and some sources to support your outrageous claims. You are like the little boy shouting his mouth off because he knows a big boy is standing behind him. However I think in this case DK will be reluctant to support your debating style and might be driven by some sort of moral code to ask you to justify it here.And children, it's Mr Haddock to you two.ps I have put a comment on your blog, you can either respond to it or delete it.